Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it.

Menu

Monthly Archives: December 2017

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released Justice Department records showing that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server until Tuesday, November 1, 2016, one week prior to the presidential election. The Clinton email probe was codenamed “Midyear Exam.”

While working as Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office, McCabe controlled resources supporting the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. An October 2016 internal FBI memorandum labeled “Overview of Deputy Director McCabe’s Recusal Related To Dr. McCabe’s Campaign for Political Office,” details talking points about McCabe’s various potential conflicts of interest, including the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s illicit server, which officially began in July 2015:

While at [Washington Field Office] did Mr. McCabe provide assistance to the Clinton investigation?

After the referral was made, FBI Headquarters asked the Washington Field Office for personnel to conduct a special investigation. McCabe was serving as [Assistant Director] and provided personnel resources. However, he was not told what the investigation was about. In February 2016 McCabe became Deputy Director and began overseeing the Clinton investigation.

The Overview also shows if asked whether McCabe played any role in his wife’s campaign, the scripted response was: “No. Then-[Assistant Director] McCabe played no role, attended no events and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind.” More here.

Eight high ranking Department of Justice and FBI officials have been removed, reassigned or are rumored to be leaving. They include the top FBI agents who worked on two of the agency’s most high-profile investigations in the past two years: the probe into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information as secretary of state, and the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.

There’s been a great deal of news coverage about allegations of collusion between President Trump and Russia; much of the reporting apparently accurate and some of it not.

Less attention has been given to concurrent investigations that seem to be claiming scalps even if indirectly.

The investigations into the investigators include Congressional inquiries and a multi-faceted probe launched by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz surrounding the FBI decision not to prosecute Clinton. Specifically, Horowitz—who was appointed by President Obama—said he’s reviewing:

Allegations that Justice Department and FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information and were influenced by improper considerations in releasing certain documents just before the 2016 election.

Below are some of the players. Their inclusion in this article does not imply any wrongdoing. None of those mentioned are formally accused of any improper activities. Their past or pending job status may not be related to the controversies discussed. To the extent that any have commented, they firmly deny any misconduct and are staunchly defended by supporters and colleagues.

Under questioning from Congress, Yates admitted that as Deputy Attorney General under Loretta Lynch, she engaged in the sensitive practice of unmasking and reviewing classified documents from “Trump, his associates or any member of Congress.” Later, as Acting Attorney General, Yates ordered Justice Department attorneys not to defend President Trump’s ban on certain Muslim visitors from entering the U.S.

Latest: President Trump fired Yates in January 2017. She was both praised and criticized for her stance on the travel ban. Since her firing, Yates has attacked President Trump in public referring to him as as “shamelessly unpatriotic,” saying he has “indifference to truth,” and claiming his “respect for the rule of law” is “in tatters.”

Alleged conflicts of interest with the Hillary Clinton campaign and alleged disclosure of nonpublic information for political reasons.

During the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, Kadzik appeared to tip off Clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta about two issues: an upcoming hearing where a Justice Department official would be asked about the Clinton emails, and the timing of the release of some Clinton emails. Kadzik previously worked for Podesta as an attorney. He denied any wrongdoing.

Latest: Kadzik left the Justice Department in January 2017 and works in private practice.

“Retiring”: Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director

Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director

Failure to exclude himself from leading the Hillary Clinton email probe despite alleged conflicts of interest.

Appointed by James Comey, McCabe led the FBI investigation that determined Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted for her mishandling of classified emails. McCabe’s wife had reportedly received $700,000 for her unsuccessful Virginia senate campaign from close Clinton ally Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. (McAuliffe was also said to be under FBI investigation regarding campaign contributions from a Chinese businessman. He has not been charged and has denied any wrongdoing.)

Latest: News reports say McCabe will retire in early March when he’s eligible for his full pension.

Baker also served as counsel for McCabe during Congressional questioning. Separately, Baker was allegedly in contact with a reporter who published the first story about an anti-Trump “dossier” alleging ties between Trump and Russia. (The reporter denies Baker was a source.) The dossier was presented shortly before the election as if it were an intelligence investigative file. But it turned out to be political opposition research funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Congress is investigating whether the FBI improperly used the dossier to convince a secret court to authorize wiretaps to surveil Trump associates. The FBI reportedly secretly offered to pay the author of the dossier to keep pursuing leads after the election, but the deal wasn’t ultimately consummated.

Latest: Baker has reportedly been reassigned. His supporters have told reporters the reassignment is unrelated to the investigations and that he did nothing wrong.

“Transferred”: Peter Strzok, the top FBI agent on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team

Peter Strzok, FBI official

Alleged anti-Trump political bias.

Strzok is identified as the FBI official who softened language and watered down key findings in the Clinton email probe. He was the top FBI agent on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion and number two in FBI Counterintelligence office during Hillary Clinton email investigation. Strzok oversaw FBI interviews with Trump National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (who plead guilty to lying to the FBI).

While Strzok worked on the Trump-Russia investigation, the Inspector General unearthed anti-Trump text messages Strzok had exchanged with FBI attorney Lisa Page, a fellow member of Mueller’s team with whom Strzok was reportedly having an illicit affair.

Latest: Strzok was ousted from Mueller’s team and transferred to human resources in August after the controversial anti-Trump text messages were discovered.

“Shifted”: Lisa Page, FBI lawyer and McCabe senior adviser

Alleged anti-Trump political bias.

Page was on the FBI Mueller team investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion. She had exchanged anti-Trump text messages with Strzok, the top FBI agent on Mueller’s team, with whom she was reportedly having an illicit affair.

Latest: Page left the Mueller team last summer. Reports say the move was unrelated to the controversy.

Excerpts from text exchanges between FBI couple Strzok and Page who served on the Mueller team investigating Trump:

Page: “I cannot believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious candidate for president” and “God(,) Trump is a loathsome human.

Strzok: “He’s an idiot like Trump. Figure they cancel each other out.”

Strzok called Trump “awful” and “an idiot” and said Clinton should win “100,000,000-0.’’

Strzok on Election Day when he learned Trump could win: “f*****g terrifying.”

Strzok: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s [believed to refer to McCabe] office that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.’’

Page texted that she hoped Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan “fails and crashes in a blaze of glory.” Strzok replied that Republicans need “to pull their head out of that *ss. Shows no sign of occurring any time soon.”

“Fired”: James Comey, FBI Director under President Obama

James Comey, former FBI Director

Comey originally served under George W. Bush and briefly under President Trump. Once he was fired by Trump in May 2017, Comey secretly leaked a memo to the press to engineer the appointment of a special counsel to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion.

“Demoted”: Bruce Ohr, Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice

Bruce Ohr, Justice Dept. official; Photo courtesy C-SPAN

Alleged improper political conflicts.

Bruce Ohr arranged to meet with the co-founder Fusion GPS, the political opposition research firm that compiled the anti-Trump “dossier,” according to court filings. Fusion GPS also hired Ohr’s wife, Nellie.

Latest: Ohr still works at the Justice Department, but was reportedly recently removed as associate deputy attorney general.

Special Counsel investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion in 2016 US election. Former FBI Director 2001-2013 under Bush and Obama. Mueller served as FBI Director under Comey when Comey was a top Bush Justice Department official.

Investigator: Michael Horowitz

Obama-appointed Department of Justice Inspector General investigating a wide range of alleged misconduct within FBI and Department of Justice.

Scott Douglas is an Alabama activist. He is Executive Director of Greater Birmingham Ministries “a multi-faith, multi-constituency and multi-racial organization that provides emergency services to families in economic crisis while working with congregations and low-income residents to reclaim communities, identify and fill gaps in social service infrastructures and build community confidence in self-governance through inclusive, participatory, transparent and democratically accountable civic and voter engagement.”

Our most important article this year. The fate of all of us may depend on the answer. – Trevor

Is Vladimir Putin a Communist?

By J.R. Nyquist

American Thinker recently carried Paul Gottfried’s article, Misreading Putin, in which Gottfried commits a number of errors. First, Gottfried says that Putin was never really a communist; and second, he suggests that the Russian Federation is not a continuation of the Soviet Union. In the paragraphs that follow I will present evidence that Putin has always been a communist, and the Russian Federation was and is a false front behind which the old communist structures continue to operate.

Because this subject is of grave importance to our country, and because the danger of war is growing day to day, we should no longer allow naïve judgments about Russia to pass without contradiction. Of course, I have great respect for Professor Gottfried. His writings are fascinating, his conversation is full of wit and fun – but on this subject he is wrong.

The professor begins his article by criticizing the practice of linking Putin with the KGB as a result of Putin having been a KGB officer and a former head of the Russian special services. It was from his job as chief of the FSB (formerly KGB) that Putin was promoted to the office of Prime Minister by President Boris Yeltsin. This took many people by surprise at the time. According to Professor Gottfried, linking Putin with the Soviet special services is “an attempt to view him [Putin] and his regime as an extension of the Soviet Communist one.” Gottfried goes on to write, “This is a glaring misreading of the cultural and political changes in Russia since the 1990s.” He adds, “There isn’t much evidence that Putin was ever anything but a Russian nationalist, who worked for the Soviet rulers of the Russian empire before they fell from power.”

This statement is nonsense because there is plenty of evidence. Simply watch the online videos from the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students, held in Russia (at Sochi) from the 13th to the 22nd of October this year. This was a massive communist youth rally at which Putin gave a very telling speech. Here is what President Putin said to this huge international gathering of communists only two months ago:

“Dear friends, welcome to Russia – at the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students. This forum unites the youth of our planet…. Almost 30 thousand participants … from over 180 states and all of the world’s continents have gathered here in Sochi! Young people of Russia – of our big country – from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok – are also with us! The first festival was held seven decades ago. Back then, young men and women of your age were brought together by the power of a dream. Their belief that youth, with its sincerity and kindness, could break the ice of distrust and would help to rid the world of unfairness, wars and conflicts. Indeed, there was much that your peers of that time managed to achieve. They proved that barriers were powerless in the face of genuine friendship. They showed that political, national, religious, cultural and other differences had no effect on the warmth of people-to-people relations. Our country is proud to have hosted the Global Celebration of Youth twice. In 1957, the whole of Moscow was welcoming the participants in the 6th Festival. People were standing in the streets and on rooftops. The Muscovites cordially greeted the participants in the 12th Youth Forum in the summer of 1985. Today you have the chance to experience the hospitality and the openness of our sports capital – Sochi. Sochi is the city of Olympic brotherhood and hope. The five Olympic rings – like the five petals of the festival daisy – have become the symbol of solidarity among all the continents. I am convinced that you – the youth of different countries, nationalities and faiths – share common feelings, values and ambitions. An aspiration for freedom and happiness, peace and accord on the planet. A desire to create and attain bigger goals and we’ll do our best so that you can achieve success. The energy and talent of youth have astonishing power. The young generation always gives the world innovative ideas. You have the aptitude to experiment, argue, and often – to challenge the way things are. Go for it. Create your own future. Strive to change the world and make it a better place. There is nothing you cannot do. Just don’t give up and keep going. And be assured that the festival brotherhood will help fulfill your boldest dreams and good intentions. I declare the opening of the 19th World Festival of Youth and Students! Good luck!”

During Putin’s speech we can see the young communists applauding and smiling. Some are looking up to Putin with youthful admiration. They are overjoyed at Putin’s words of support. For them there can be no question. Putin is not a nationalist. He is a communist. He says to them, “Go for it. Create your own future.” (That is, a communist future.) This is not a nationalist audience, and they are not applauding a nationalist speaker.

“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.”

In January 2016 Putin publicly criticized Lenin. But he didn’t criticize Lenin for being a communist. He criticized Lenin for “providing regions with autonomy.” By doing this, Lenin “planted an atomic bomb under the building that is called Russia and which would later explode.” This explosion took place in 1991 and led to the breakup of the Soviet Union. Putin was not criticizing Lenin’s communist ideas. He was criticizing Lenin for causing the breakup of the Soviet Union.

In response to a reading of Boris Pasternak’s poem about Lenin’s imposition of communist thought, Putin publicly said, “Ruling with your ideas as a guide is correct, but that is only the case when that idea leads to the right results, not like it did with Vladimir Ilyich [Lenin].” Many newspapers reported that Putin had verbally attacked the Soviet system and its founder. But Putin was actually criticizing Lenin’s tactics because they ultimately proved harmful to the communist state.

At the same time, Putin has refused to bury Lenin, who lies in state at the center of Moscow. Is this the policy of a nationalist? It shows that Lenin remains the country’s most important historical figure; for when the Russians recovered the body of Tsar Nicholas II there was no thought of placing his body in Red Square. Nicholas II was buried in 1998. But Lenin remains unburied. Why? Putin has never given a satisfactory answer to that question.

Professor Gottfried says, “Putin has gone out of his way to advance the moral teachings of the Russian Orthodox faith.” Unfortunately, the Russian Orthodox Church has been an important tool of the communists and of the KGB. Long ago the church was conquered by the Russian special services. Consider the revelations of former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky on this subject:

“The KGB [FSB/SVR] has killed a lot of [Russian] priests. Some emigres know about this, but have preferred to keep quiet. Some from false patriotism, others because they worked for the KGB. So I had to apply all my experience as a former Soviet intelligence analyst to recreate an approximate picture of [recent deaths] by interviewing a lot of people. At the end of April 1998, in the building of the New York Synod … Archpriest Lev Lebedev of Kursk, died a strange death. He was an implacable opponent of reintegration with the Moscow Patriarchate.”

Preobrazhensky’s investigation suggests that Archpriest Lebedev and many others have been murdered by the Russian special services. Lebedev’s death, in fact, proved to be a decisive step in Moscow’s takeover of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Once upon a time the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad would have nothing to do with the Moscow Patriarchate. Now they have been absorbed by it!

And who was the head of the domestic side of this operation in 1998? Vladimir Putin, of course. It is impossible that Putin – as head of the FSB – was unaware of the many murders that were taking place. But there’s more!

In a book that I co-authored with Preobrazhensky, the former KGB officer wrote a chapter titled “How the West Was Fooled by Vladimir Putin.” He began this chapter with the following statement: “In the 1990s, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, former anti-Soviet organizations have [since] become pro-Soviet and pro-Russian, although in Russia the possibility has still remained of returning the Communists to power.”

According to Preobrazhensky, “Putin is a thousand times more cunning, cynical and insidious” than American leaders. Putin fooled President Bush with ease, telling Bush of the miraculous cross he wore around his neck. The cross worn by Putin had survive a fire, and through this “miracle” Putin had “realized that the world is ruled by higher spiritual forces!” As Preobrazhensky explains, “This story, in which not a single Russian would ever believe, made a deep impression on Bush. Because Bush took faith with trepidation, having come to it in adulthood, he seemed to have decided that he and Putin were equally … faithful Christians.”

Like his alleged nationalism, Putin’s alleged Christianity is not to be trusted. On Sept. 8, 2000, Putin was on Larry King’s television program. King said to Putin, “There is much talk about Vladimir Putin and religious faith. I’m told that you wear a cross. Is that true? Are you religious? What are your feelings in this area?”

Putin replied, “I prefer – I would prefer not to develop on that subject in detail. I think such things are sacred for everybody. Everybody’s belief is not to be shown off….” Then Putin told the story of the miraculous cross.

King then asked, “Do you believe in a higher power?”

For those listening live, Putin was translated as follows: “I believe in the power of man.” In the official CNN transcript, the translation says, “I believe in human beings.” Of course, when a real Christian is asked to testify on behalf of his faith, such an answer would be tantamount to a denial of faith. It is, in fact, how a communist would answer the question. And I believe Putin had to give this answer for the sake of the Party cadres in Russia.

There is also the strange interchange between Putin and a journalist during his first visit to Cuba in December 2000, during which he called the communist island nation “our closest partner and closest ally for many years….” As the transcript (referenced below) shows, a reporter asked Putin if he was left-leaning or right-leaning. “How do you describe yourself?”

Putin gave a curious Aesopian answer: “As for what various people think about who I am and what I am, the Russians have a saying: ‘You can call me a pot as long as you don’t put me in the oven.’ I think it is not by chance that left-wing political leaders today come out for market reforms.”

This is a very revealing answer, in my opinion. Throughout the world, communists turned toward market reform as if on orders from above, according to some larger plan. They began denying that they were Leninists. But here Putin was slyly affirming his Leninism. According to one of my Russian-speaking friends, Putin’s remark better translates as, “Call me a pot but heat me not.”

Putin doesn’t want his true ideological leanings to be sounded. He wants to avoid such questions. This is necessary in order to fool the West. At the same time, he must use Aesopian language to assure the Party cadres at home: “Yes, I am a communist. You know the drill. We are laying low. We are engaged in a deception operation about which the West knows nothing. Think what you like, but don’t give me away. Call me a pot, but heat me not.”

Before and after 1991 Russia embarked on a New Economic Policy modeled on Lenin’s New Economic Policy of 1921. Some readers may recall that Lenin announced this policy by saying that Russia must “retreat back into capitalism.” The statements of Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin are no different. Their policy is entirely in keeping with Lenin’s, only it is a more thorough-going deception.

Meanwhile, in Cuba, Putin spoke of “restoring [Russia’s] positions [in Latin America]….” As we look around, we see that Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas of Nicaragua are back in power. They have toppled the democratic constitution, and they are receiving assistance from Russia; for example, consider Russia’s foreign aid to Nicaragua, and the shipping of tanks to the Nicaraguan regime, and approval for Russia to build a GLONASS tracking station on Nicaragua’s Caribbean coast. A clueless American journalist has called this a “puzzling move.” But that is only because the true context of Russian policy has been missed!

Nicaragua is a communist regime and Russia is arming that regime. An investigation of other communist regimes, from North Korea to Angola, will reveal a similar pattern. Russia is arming the communist states, just as it did under the Soviet Union. This is not something open to question.

In 2013, Communist Angola was reported as the “biggest Africa buyer of Russian arms.”

In this context, Russian support for the Angolan Army has been the key to sustaining the embattled communist regime in Congo. And Russia is investing in Congo as well, as if it were a satellite country – with “cooperation” in the development of education, science, and the country’s secret police.

As Congressional investigations have shown, Russia has made a very large contribution to the development of communist China’s military potential in terms of missiles, naval weapons and warheads. If one wants to argue that China is no longer communist, he should take this argument up with the Chinese government and its ruling Chinese Communist Party. They run a very large labor camp system with a red star over the door.

In terms of the dangerous crisis which has begun in Korea: Russia and China are both supporting communist North Korea. If one wants to dispute that North Korea is a communist regime as well, then they should reread the ideological pronouncements of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Yes, they are Marxist-Leninists.

As for Russian and Cuban assistance to the Venezuelan regime, the record is not open to dispute. Putin supported the communist cause in Venezuela. In fact, he supports socialism throughout Latin America. And why wouldn’t he? Look at what he told the communist youth at Sochi in October. Only a communist would make such a speech to a large communist gathering.

In late 2000 a British writer named Christopher Story asked the famous GRU defector, Viktor Suvorov, whether the fall of the Soviet Union was genuine. Suvorov said no, of course not. Story then asked about Suvorov’s contacts with the British military and intelligence establishment. Surely, said Story, they know what is going on. Suvorov assured him that British military and intelligence leaders were clueless. Story asked how this was possible. Suvorov replied: “Because they are stupid.”

This takes me back to something Professor Gottfried suggested in his essay. He wrote, “it is plainly stupid or dishonest to claim that we are still fighting the Commies….”

But the facts show that we are fighting the Commies. One might rather say that “it is plainly stupid or dishonest to claim that we are not still fighting communists.” I fear that Professor Gottfried only recognizes communists when a red star is tattooed on their forehead. He ought to consider that communists have no reason to advertise themselves. They can advance more successfully with a program of false advertising, or by hiding their true allegiances. In fact, they have done this many times since the founding of the Soviet Union. Or has Gottfried forgotten our dear Uncle Joe, who “shut down” the Comintern and “reopened” Russia’s churches during World War II?

Putin is not a nationalist. He is not a Christian. And he is not a monarchist. But Professor Gottfried is ready to believe that Vladimir Putin is all those things. ‘In June, 2015,” noted Gottfried, “Putin announced his intention of reinstating what is left of the Russian royal family in their ancestral residence. This is widely regarded as the first step toward restoring the Russian monarchy.”

This is worse than naïve. And what has come of this restoration of the monarchy? Nothing! The Russian royals have not taken up residence in their old palaces. There is no prospect of a restoration. It is another fairy tale designed to raise the hopes of “reactionaries,” to win the approval of conservatives.

Professor Gottfried, in his article, says that those who refer to Putin’s KGB career, and who link Russia to its communist past, are yearning for the “good old days” of the Cold War. But why would anyone yearn for something that has been here all along? The Cold War never ended. The so-called collapse of communism is just a slogan for knuckleheads.

What is “plainly stupid,” I think, is to believe that the most powerful political mafia on earth – the Communist Party Soviet Union – spontaneously dissolved itself to found, in its place, a capitalist democracy in Russia. I would also argue that it’s “plainly stupid” to believe that changing a few street names and city names signifies the fall of ruling class that actually kept control of the country. I would argue that replacing the name KGB with FSB or SVR does not change the thing itself; that selling state property to KGB-recruited oligarchs is not capitalism; that rigged elections are not democracy; that supposedly “independent” political parties, run by former KGB officers and Party apparatchiks, is not a multiparty system. Communism may be, at some level, a system of ideas – but it has also been an interlocking system of organizations, intelligence networks, factories, parties, banks, governments and paramilitary organizations. To be a communist is only superficially about belief. At its essence, it is about power and imperialism. If they do not follow Marx or Lenin to the letter, it does not mean they are not communists. It only means that the new religion and its empire are yet evolving.

If we look at the Russian Federation today, and we study its various institutions, we will find that most all of them are extensions of Soviet organizations – often with the same management, with the same operating procedures, and the same ruling attitudes. This may be seen in the FSB itself, which presently celebrates Felix Dzerzhinsky as its founder and the Bolshevik Revolution as its point of departure. But Professor Gottfried brushes this aside as unimportant. According to Gottfried, “the platitudes of the Cold War era no longer apply to the current American-Russian confrontation.”

What platitudes would that be? Was opposition to Soviet expansion in decades past grounded in “platitudes”? What about the countless millions killed by Stalin? And how should we rate Putin’s crimes – the murdering of journalists and dissidents and Orthodox priests? Decade after decade, it is those who deny these evils that utter real platitudes. “There is no famine in Ukraine, there is only a shortage of food!” “Stalin is our uncle Joe.” “Putin is a Christian.” And the greatest platitude of all, “Communism is dead.”

Thus, I must ask: If communism died, who killed it? Not Ronald Reagan, who hugged Gorbachev in Red Square. And let’s not be pedantic. As noted above, Communism is not merely an ideology. It is a system of interlocking organizations – including clandestine organizations and false fronts. It is a movement seeking global dominance. It is constantly shifting and changing and reconfiguring. A communist is not merely about ideas. He is a person. So when we grapple with communism we must always reckon with the power of many persons. The complexity and intelligence of these persons cannot be overrated. Professor Gottfried does not get to decide that a communist is not a communist because, in some action or other, he has contradicted some past communist notion. Lenin was very clear in saying that Marxism was not a dogma. He said that communism was science, and science constantly changes. It advances and develops. This is what academic experts always miss.

As an example of what I’m trying to explain: In March of 1921 Lenin officially adopted capitalism as the economic system of the Soviet Union. No, I’m not making it up. This was how the Soviet system formed itself near the outset. It’s what so-called “Communist” countries do. Yes, they adopt capitalism. And this creates a great deal of confusion for those who think that communism is merely an economic system. Well, it never has been an economic system because Marx never outlined what that economic system would look like. What Marx actually said – and few took notice – was that the path to communism was by way of capitalism. So Lenin was a faithful Marxist after all. And Mr. Deng was a faithful Marxist in China, when he freed the Chinese markets.

Above all, perhaps the lesson here is not to be animated by a belief in Cold War stereotypes. It’s my contention, here and elsewhere, that we never understood communism; that we never understood Russia; that we never understood the Cold War. America’s wealth and power and greatness led us to erroneous ways of thinking. And here we are!

In January 2016 President Putin publicly revealed that he has kept his Communist Party membership card, and has a soft spot for Soviet ideals. “I didn’t throw out my party card,” he told a group of supporters, “I didn’t burn it. My card is lying around somewhere.” Putin did not stop there, but went on to explain that he wasn’t a party member through necessity. “I can’t say I was totally an ideological Communist but I did really treasure it [the card].”

Putin says he was not a total “ideological Communist,” but Lenin and Mao might have said the same thing about themselves. Time and again they went up against the ideological Marxists. As revolutionaries, however, they were always alive to new possibilities and new ways of thinking about socialism. Therefore, as opponents of socialism, shouldn’t we also avoid stereotypes and rigid ideological thinking? This should be doubly true when it comes to naming our enemy. Yes, that enemy is communist. No, that enemy doesn’t have to be a pedantic Stalinist monkey. He might be intelligent, and cunning. And he might be wearing a cross around his neck instead of a red star.

Like millions of lower to middle income American families back in the day, my parents did an awesome job at Christmastime. With little money, they always found a way to give their kids happy Christmases. As the 9 year old eldest, I babysat my 4 siblings. I knew mom and dad did not have a lot of money. And yet, I never thought we were poor or felt shortchanged at Christmas. I don’t remember my 3 brothers and sister ever feeling shortchanged at Christmas. How awesome is that? Given their financial challenges, my parents had to be magicians to pull off that trick. Somehow, they performed their magic every year. I kind of took it for granted. Looking back, all I can say is, “Wow!”

The arrival of the Montgomery Wards catalog was a major exciting event. Each of us kids circled the toys we wanted for Christmas.

I remember, my Roy Roger’s pistol and holster. On Christmas day, I left my pistol outside for a moment. When I came back, it was gone. Mom was extremely annoyed at me.

I felt my Aunt Bummie and her 5 sons living on welfare were poor. Mom, dad, we 5 kids, Aunt Bummie and her 5 boys sat around a table, feasting on a mountain of fried chicken necks and backs. They were dirt cheap to buy. We laughed, joked and had a wonderful time. God has blessed me to travel the world, enjoying numerous five star dining experiences. I still love fried chicken necks and backs.

One Christmas when we were still living in the Baltimore government housing project, I found a used bicycle hidden deep in the closet. I knew the bike was my Christmas present. I was elated because I knew mom and dad could not afford it. Mom was disappointed that I saw the bike. I told her I was a big boy and wanted to help her and dad play Santa; setting up the gifts Christmas eve for my younger siblings. She said, “Okay”.

Then there was the Christmas we could have died. In 1952, the restriction of blacks being allowed to take the test to become Baltimore City firefighters ended. Dad became a firefighter. We moved out of the projects. My parents purchased a home in a small black suburban community; Pumphrey, Maryland. It was Christmas eve. Dad had to work the night shift at the fire house. Mom decided to paint a room with oil based paint. Dad came home 7am Christmas morning to find us all passed out. He rescued us by carrying us to the front porch. We recovered and opened presents.

My wife Mary said her parents were pretty awesome as well. They always found a way to make room and feed relatives in need. Mary’s immediate family consisted of her parents and 3 siblings. And yet, Mary recalls washing dishes for as many as 11 people living in their home. She has wonderful childhood Christmas memories. Although, she has been scared for life regarding washing dishes. Mary cooks and I wash the dishes. Our kitchen remodel will include a dishwasher.

Old school American parents were awesome. They were responsible early in their adulthood, doing whatever needed to be done. My baby-boomer generation seems to be pretty spoiled and self focused.

At 29 years old, my Dad fathered his 5 kids and tried to be a stand-in father/role model for my Aunt Bummie’s five boys. They loved my dad and envied me for having him.

I’m getting choked up.

Mom passed away 20 years ago. Our family’s 2017 annual Christmas Eve gathering was wonderful. Everyone shared a spirit of making merry. Last year, Dad declared me the new patriarch of the family. At this year’s gathering, I called for a round of applause for my late mom and 89 year old dad, thanking them for all the great Christmases.

I pray y’all had a Merry Christmas. Have a Happy and Blessed New Year!

Would the deliberate thwarting of a federal investigation into a terrorist organization “even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States” count as treason? Would an investigation by a sitting Attorney General and calls from Congress to investigate a former president’s alleged “derailing” of a federal investigation count as “news”?

At the time of this writing, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and the Washington Post have all but ignored a ground-breaking Politico story that alleges former President Obama thwarted a massive federal investigation (dubbed Project Cassandra)into a known Iranian-backed terrorist organization, Hezbollah.

The sitting Attorney General orders an investigation into a former President’s alleged thwarting of a federal investigation into a terrorist organization.

“There’s no better time than the holiday season to reach out and give back to our communities,” former President Barack Obama tweeted about his recent visit to a Boys & Girls Club in Washington, D.C. https://t.co/dwY49xNZatpic.twitter.com/uoYAdXffQd

Dean Baquet: “Did Obama live up to all of your expectations?”
Jay-Z: “He’s there for eight years. And he has to undo what 43 presidents have done. In eight years. That’s not fair.” pic.twitter.com/kcpoJEIwnt

“Housing Minister Eberhard van der Laan has published the controversial list of the so-called “40 problem neighbourhoods”. The minister had originally refused to name the areas for fear that the neighbourhoods and their residents would be stigmatised.” –Expatica.com/NL, 2009

“The problem districts in the Top 20 are characterised by a high density of government-owned housing, high unemployment, crime, nuisance by youngsters, and many immigrants. In Kolenkit, 80 percent of the residents are immigrants.” –www.nisnews.nl, 2009

Former Chairman House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra was sworn in earlier this month as U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands. Hoekstra was given the opportunity to stand strongly against the very real phenomena of “no go zones” in the Netherlands but sadly folded when a Dutch reporter confronted him on his previous statements about “no-go zones” he made in 2015.

The reporter said: “Speaking of threat, at one point you mentioned in a debate that there are no-go zones in the Netherlands and that cars and politicians are being set on fire.”

Hoekstra quickly interrupted, saying: “I didn’t say that, that is actually an incorrect statement. We would call it fake news. I never said that. It’s not what I said.”

The programme then cut to an archive clip from 2015 which showed Hoekstra saying: “The Islamic movement has now got to a point where they have put Europe into chaos. Chaos in the Netherlands – there are cars being burned, there are politicians that are being burned, and yes there are no-go zones in the Netherlands.”

After being shown the footage, Hoekstra claimed he “didn’t call that fake news”.

Here is the video:

@Nieuwsuur to new US ambassador: “You mentioned [..] that there are no go-zones in the Netherlands and that cars and politicians are set on fire.”

The wasted opportunity does not reflect reality in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, where “no-go-zones” are the pathetic result of irresponsible decisions made by a politically correct minority of progressive politicians who are themselves isolated from the areas in which they create with their own policies.

Trump ambassador caught lying about Muslim ‘no-go zones’ on Dutch news show https://t.co/P1t7YbEN4S Anyone in Holland knows it’s true: Muslim migrants do live in No Go Zones – plural – & are fast wrecking the place

1/Why dont you ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali about this, Gabe, who fled the Netherlands after radical Islamists assassinated Theo Van Gogh who was making a film with her on oppression of women by Islamists? She lives in the US today under high security.

The exchange and the bland statement released by Pete Hoekstra is confusing to those who understand the politically incorrect reality of “no-go-zones” in the Netherlands. Hoekstra’s condescending denial of his 2015 statement does an injustice to the people of the Netherlands, who know full well what is happening. It is not a stretch to consider that the forces of political correctness have had their way with Hoekstra, who can only redeem himself by loudly and strongly telling the truth.

The Obama administration allegedly thwarted a federal investigation into Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah in order to appease Iranian officials in their single-minded determination to pass the Iran Nuclear Deal. In the wake of this bombshell, which is now confirmed to be a target for investigation by Congress, a story that did not make it past the local news today should be making national headlines.

Roda Taher along with his wife, Haanan Jaafar, both from Beirut are involved in a massive internet fraud scheme that “…law enforcement sources say he used to finance Hezbollah, the radical Muslim group based in Lebanon,” as reported at the Miami Herald. The pair were charged with about a dozen others in October, but evidently Roda Tahar & his wife were free to leave the country.

While the initial DOJ report fails to mention Hezbollah, Jay Weaver of the Miami Herald lays out a good case that the massive multi-million dollar scheme was indeed funding the terror organization:

“While a pair of indictments outlining the scheme involving 15 defendants do not mention Hezbollah or any support for the terrorist organization, sources told the Miami Herald that Taher’s network was set up to back the notorious group in the Middle East. Hezbollah, now considered an influential political force in Lebanon, has financial links stretching from South Florida to South America to Africa and other regions of the world.

The U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment about the possible ties between Taher and Hezbollah. But a telltale sign that this isn’t just another money-laundering case recently surfaced in court papers, when prosecutors asked a federal judge to appoint a security officer to handle classified information before trial in Miami.

A counter-terrorism expert who focuses on Hezbollah’s illicit activities around the globe said that while he has no knowledge of Taher’s links to Hezbollah, his indictment points to a highly sophisticated money-laundering network that transferred millions from bank accounts in South Florida to suspicious companies around the globe.

“Little scammers in Miami don’t wire $94 million to foreign bank accounts in places like China and Hong Kong,” said Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Washington-based nonprofit Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “It’s very plausible to see this as a larger scheme for funding Hezbollah.””

Based on Politico‘s reporting, it is not a stretch to consider that had President Obama not “derailed” the federal investigation, dubbed Project Cassandra, perhaps Roda Tahar and Haanan Jaafar would be in custody instead of on the run.

Congress is “formally” taking steps to examine claims made in a ground-breaking Politico article alleging that in order to appease Iranian officials while securing the Iran Deal, senior Obama administration officials deliberately thwarted an official investigation into Hezbollah’s massive drug-running operation “even as it was funneling cocaine into the United States.”

The Washington Free Beacon reports that “multiple congressional officials and insiders” are “launching an investigation into Obama-era efforts to thwart a longstanding U.S. investigation into the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah…”

One of the main players in the scandal is Ben Rhodes, an extreme partisan, anti-Trump, once-aspiring novelist whose brother David is President of CBS News. In response to the allegations made in the report, Rhodes referred to the left-leaning Politico as a “right wing echo chamber.”

Ironically, Rhodes was featured in a NY Times article by David Samuels written in May 2016 as admitting to manipulating the media to regurgitate the Obama Administration narrative.

“’We created an echo chamber,’ he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. ‘They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.’”

In that same article, Samuels described Rhodes as “…the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives…”